Esquivel wants a reconsideration of the worst legal decision in 25 years

KRQE lawyer Marty Esquivel is a lot of things.  If asked, he will point out that he is expert in the First Amendment.

In especially, he is so expert in conducting public meetings and protecting the civil rights of participants that he is scheduled to teach a seminar on exactly that subject during NM FOG's upcoming confab.

It would be a huge blow to his ego if the worst legal decision in 25 years found him to be otherwise.  He would like very much to have that albatross removed from around his neck.

Esquivel's problem is that for all practical intents and purposes, he forfeited his right to ask the court for any favors by publicly insulting the court in the Journal; offering that in 25 years he hadn't seen a worse decision or one he "disagreed" with more.

A motion has been filed in federal court.  The motion to reconsider the preliminary injunction enjoining Marty Esquivel and the board from enforcing their unconstitutional ban on my free exercise of my "privilege" to attend school board meetings and public forums. 

The motion was filed by the law firm that represents taxpayers, the board and all of the individual defendants except Marty Esquivel.  Taxpayers and Marty Esquivel have their own entirely different law firm.

Regardless of who is named where, its clear that the person with the most to lose in this case is Marty Esquivel.

"The board" will get over losing a civil rights case in court; Esquivel won't.

Esquivel and his dream team defense enjoy an unlimited budget and no public oversight.  He is personally responsible for the wasting a half a million tax dollars in an effort to cover his own ass.

He and his defense enjoy as well, unlimited support from
KRQE, Kent Walz and the Journal, and the rest of the
"news outlets" here in River City.

Esquivel, by and through his lawyers "consents"
to the filing of a motion to reconsider
the worst legal decision in 25 years.

... the legal decision that found him to be exactly what he is.




photo Mark Bralley

"This satisfies your request under IPRA."

I had made a public records request of the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office or "Department"; unclear as it reads Department on their website, link.

I am requesting any public records that reflect of the number of man hours and other resources that the Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department has spent investigating the alleged theft of ammunition from the APS.

BCSO (or D?) Local Custodian of Public Records Sgt Aaron Williamson writes that the request was received by him on April 1, 2014.

The law requires the immediate production of immediately available records.  A Custodian worth his salt knows that.

Unless the fact that the BCSO or D does

... not track specific hours involved with each case.

is news to  BCSO or D veteran Sgt Williamson, his response was about as immediately available as immediately available gets.

I just now received the response, so it took 15 days.

15 days is the absolute maximum "allowed" by the law.

It's "legal".

It meets the lowest standards of conduct acceptable among civilized human beings.  It meets the standards of conduct that every higher standard of conduct, is higher than.

Williamson is screwing with the press; in First Amendment terms.  Unless he treats all members of the press this abysmally, I am being subject to disparate treatment and opportunity to exercise my Constitutionally protected human right to be the press.

He is screwing with me because he wants to, or
because he was ordered to, or
both.

He, or both, are screwing with me because they can.
The law in its loosest sense and legal weaselry allows them to.

Sheriff Dan Houston, by and through his trusted servant, offered;

I can tell you that detectives were assigned the case on March 11, 2014. As of today’s date the case is still active and being investigated.

This satisfies your request under IPRA.
Sincerely,

Sergeant Aaron Williamson

Custodian of Records

It does of course, satisfy the request, but not in a government
of the people, by the people and for the people kind of a way.

The people still have no real idea whether the power and resources they have entrusted to Dan Houston are being used in the public interests, in someone's personal interests, or not being used at all.

Odd that they don't keep that kind of a record.

How can they properly prioritize spending of our power and resources if they don't keep track of how much of each they're spending?

Odder still, that they start screwing with you if you start asking any questions.

Please people; there is an elephant in the room.

There is a least one of them in every room where questions are being asked by anybody, about the public interests and about the public service of politicians and public servants.

We pay the elephants to tell us the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but
the ethically redacted truth and in a timely manner.

They don't.  It isn't their job.
That's not why they're in the room.

Their job is to spin the truth or obfuscate the production of the truth in the personal best interest of the politician or public servant they serve instead of serving the people.

Briana Anderson does it for Mayor Richard Berry.

Monica Armenta does it for Winston Brooks and the Board.

Aaron Williamson does it for Dan Houston.

Where else but in government to you pay people to screw with you?

Is there a single powerful politician or public servant anywhere
who doesn't have a public servant working under them
whose job it is to make that politician or public servant look good
even when, and especially when they don't?




photo Mark Bralley

Albuquerque top cops in free fall

Nearly the entire leadership of law enforcement for as far as the eye can see, is manifestly corrupt and or incompetent.

Today we find in the Journal, link, that top cop at the Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department has joined the top cops at APS and the APD in their fall from grace. (APD Chief Ray Schultz in absentia, having gotten out while the getting was good.  The same can be said for the interim APD chief; got out while the getting was good).


Despite Sheriff Dan Houston's protestations of innocence and the fact that "the county admits no liability", taxpayers will be forking over around 3/4s of a million dollars because the complaints against Houston are justified.  He did defame the plaintiff (where have I heard that before).  He did discharge her in retaliation and in breach of her contract.

Bernalillo County Sheriff Dan Houston admitted calling the complainant and another employee “a couple of whores.”

Not a big deal in his mind because he was just “repeating an allegation made by a third party” during a meeting he thought was in secret.

It was “hell” working as the attorney and spokeswoman for Houston.

The government did fail to release public records.

"A judge in November 2013 ordered the county to pay almost $140,000 for failing to quickly provide the public records under the state Inspection of Public Records Act. That figure continued to rise as the office continued to fail to produce the documents."

- Just like APS' failure to produce the findings of investigations of allegations of felony criminal misconduct in the leadership of APS' publicly funded private police force; the figure continues to rise as APS continues to fail to produce ethically redacted public records. -

Houston is quick to point out;

"... Vega-Brown agreed as part of the settlement to “dismiss me from the lawsuit she brought against me.”

Politicians and public servants have written into their contract with the people whose power they wield and whose resources they spend, an escape clause.

When they have been found to be, or are about to be found to be guilty of squandering the public trust and treasure, pols and public servant are allowed to cough up even more tax dollars to have their names scrubbed from the settlement. 

Settlement values increase in order that complainants will abandon their desire to see individuals held individually accountable for their individual misconduct. Public resources have been, are being, and will be spent to protect the personal reputations of corrupt and or incompetent politicians and public servants.

The people's trust and treasure are squandered in order to dissociate corrupt and incompetent politicians and public servants from their corruption and the incompetence and from the just consequences of their corruption and incompetence.

Public records violation fines are paid by taxpayers,
not by the politician or public servants
who tried to keep them hidden in violation of the law.

Politicians and public servants are allowed to redact their own records, and there is no consequence for individual politicians and public servants who redact their record in violation of the law; no matter how egregious.

Settlement values increase in order that pols and public servants can just "move forward".

According to the Journal, "the settlement agreement will be made public this week or next".

This despite the fact that the N M Inspection of Public Records Act clearly intends that immediately available records are to be produced immediately or as soon as practicable.

Not in accordance with politician's and public servant's own need to manage public perception.

Make that public outrage.

Reminiscent of a dog chasing its tail, the merry go round of good ol' boy justice has Houston's BCSD investigating allegations against APS'  former Chief Steve Tellez who might well ask Houston,

who in the hell are you to be investigating me?

Houston's investigation of Tellez is more than a month old, with no end in sight.




photo Mark Bralley

BCSD APS Steve Tellez investigation enters fifth week

What should be an open and shut criminal investigation of APS former Chief of Police Steve Tellez has taken more than a month and there is no end in sight.  Doesn't that require some manner of explanation?

If not by Bernalillo County
Sheriff Dan Houston himself,
then by and though his
public information officer?

If not by them, than why not
by me?

It is taking so long because;

• Sheriff Dan Houston is part of a cover up of felony criminal misconduct involving an APS senior administrator; one of the innermost circle of power and influence in the APS, or
• Sheriff Dan Houston is really busy and hasn't gotten around to it, or
• Sheriff Dan Houston has more important things to investigate right now, or
• The case has suddenly become overwhelmingly complicated, or
• whatever.

"Whatever" because I, like you have no idea why it is taking the Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department so long to complete their investigation.  "Whatever" because in the absence of any indication from the Sheriff, making up explanations ourselves the only way we'll have explanation at all.

According to Houston's PIO;

... to tell us anything (at all) right now, would alert potential defendants to destroy evidence, coordinate stories or flee the jurisdiction.

Right, either that or "no progress is being made" is not
one of the choices on his "PIO Model" Magic 8-Ball, link.

How long must an investigation take before it has taken too long; egregiously long, willfully long?

Will statutes of limitation on felony criminal misconduct expire before the Steve Tellez investigation is complete?  It wouldn't be the first time.

When APS' public funded private police force investigated allegations of felony criminal misconduct involving its own chief in 2007, they took so long to do it that statutes of limitation expired on felony criminal misconduct before they were done.

They still haven't released the findings.  APS' Executive Director of Human Resources Andrea Trybus testified under oath; as far as she knows, they didn't conduct any investigation at all.

That investigation of allegations of felony criminal misconduct involving an APS Chief of Police was a Tellez investigation as well; not an investigation of Tellez, but one by Tellez.  Tellez was Acting Chief of APS Police at the time of the supposed investigation; it was conducted by his subordinates.

The findings of all the investigations remain hidden by the leadership of the APS, from public knowledge.  Even in violation of the law.

When they are finally produced, the findings will demonstrate that Steve Tellez had guilty knowledge of the public corruption and incompetence that brought down the former Chief Gil Lovato.  They may even prove he participated in it.  And then was promoted to Acting Chief, was responsible for overseeing the investigation of misconduct that likely included him, found none and ended up being secretly promoted to permanent Chief .

APS wouldn't be hiding the findings so hard,
if there were nothing in the findings to hide.

The failure of Kent Walz and the Journal to enforce the NM IPRA regarding the findings of investigations into public corruption and incompetence in the leadership of the APS Police force  is so egregious as to appear deliberate beyond any reasonable doubt.



photo Mark Bralley

Berry broke the law. Will he pay the fine?

There is a body of law in New Mexico called the Governmental Conduct Act, link.  If the ACT does clearly and unequivocally prohibit misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance, it should.  I will proceed under the assumption that it does.  I will proceed assuming as well, and again without citation, that the Act provides for the prosecution and punishment of violators.

There is a point where ignorance becomes so egregious that it cannot be other than willful.  There is a line between egregious and willful.  Drawing a sharp line is impossible and therefore problematic if the ignorance is marginal.

In this case, the ignorance is so egregious, so far past beyond any line however fine or broadly drawn, that we needn't trouble or concern ourselves with further its consideration.

This ignorance is too execrable to ignore.  Whether it is egregious or willful is moot. The one is as bad as the other.  Neither is acceptable.

Ignorance this abounding, must be nonfeasance, misfeasance, and depending on circumstances still secret from public knowledge, possibly/probably malfeasance (Wikipedia derived);

nonfeasance; failed to pay attention when required
misfeasance; willfully ignored the truth
malfeasance; willful ignored the truth and parties were injured

So who can the people depend upon, really depend upon,
to see that Mayor Richard Berry is held honestly accountable
to the provisions of the NM Governmental Conduct Act?

The question unfortunately, is not rhetorical in the least.

There is no history of which I am aware, of powerful politicians and public servants in New Mexico, being held honestly accountable for their failure however abject,

"... to justify the confidence placed in them by the people, at all times maintaining the integrity and discharging ethically the high responsibilities of public service."

Good leaders accept personal accountability including personal
consequences for their conduct and competence.

Great leaders demand them.

Richard Berry has done neither.




photo  Mark Bralley


Addendum; 
rather than rewrite this post and re-post it after substituting APS, the school board and superintendent where appropriate, I will simple re-ask the question;

Who is going to hold the school board and superintendent for their egregious or willful ignorance regarding student discipline issues in APS classrooms and hallways, link?

Again, the question is not rhetorical. 

One would think a free press would be of some use.
One would be disappointed.

Who is going to hold Kent Walz and the Journal accountable for their egregious or willful ignorance of problems in the APD and the APS?

And one last time, the question is not rhetorical?

Open letter to the editors of the Albuquerque Journal

Nearly twenty years ago today, I was selected to be among the first teachers in the APS to be trained on Character Counts! by its founder Michael Josephson.  As a "trainer of trainers" I trained three dozen community groups, school faculties and thousands and thousands of students on Character Counts!.

Simultaneous with acquiring my belief in Character Counts! a struggle began.

Somehow, I ended up holding the flag for the side that believes that the leadership of the APS has an inescapable obligation to role model honest accountability the Pillars of Character Counts! for as long as those are the standards that the leadership of the APS establish and enforce upon students.

Sometime in 2005 or 6, the APS School Board voted unanimously to remove the role modeling clause from their own standards of conduct.  I was suing them at the time, and arguing that the role modeling clause was evidence of their obligation to litigate "ethically".  Their response was to remove it.  It used to read;

In no case shall the standards of conduct for an adult,
be lower than the standards of conduct for students
(the Pillars of Character Counts! a nationally recognized, accepted and respected code of ethics, link.)

Since the night of their abdication, I have been doing everything I could think of to hold them accountable for that abdication.  Since the night of their abdication, I have been trying to get the Albuquerque Journal to investigate and report upon credible testimony and incontrovertible evidence of an ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS.

Their only defense against what I say and write about them is to tell people; don't listen.  He's a nut; he's a crack pot, he's dangerous.  Amid all their allegations and for a full decade, they still manage to avoid having to respond the question.  In words any APS student can understand,

why are students are expected to hold themselves honestly
accountable to higher standards of conduct than the law while
school board members and senior administrators are not?

This about the message, not about the messenger.
This about that question.  It is not about who is asking it,
why I am asking it, how I am asking it, how many times I have asked it or how many times I will have to ask it before they respond; candidly, forthrightly and honestly.


For as long as the leadership of the APS has been refusing to communicate a candid, forthright and honest response; for as long as there has been a full blown ethics and accountability scandal in the senior-most leadership of the APS, the Journal has refused investigate that scandal and report on the squandering of our trust, our treasure and our power.

In the spring of 2007, the Journal investigated and reported upon, link, a scandal in the leadership of APS publicly funded private police force.  The scandal included allegations of felony criminal misconduct involving senior APS administrators.

The findings of every single investigation of allegations of public corruption, incompetence, and felony criminal misconduct now lie in the hands of Winston Brooks and the board.  Not one word from of any of them has been made public.  They are spending operational dollars, dollars that would otherwise be spend in schools, to keep the records redacted in their entirety forever. 

They are covering up a cover up of felony criminal misconduct.

The Journal steadfastly refuses to investigate and report on the cover up; if only to report that there isn't one.

The Journal has covered my current litigation against Esquivel, Brooks, Armenta and Tellez on two occasions.  On neither occasion was I afforded the simple courtesy and journalistic basic obligation of a personal contact; an opportunity to tell my side of the story to balance the coverage.

The Journal repeatedly prints Marty Esquivel's allegations against me and repeatedly fails to provide me any opportunity to refute, rebut or deny his unfounded allegations.  Even through several school board elections.

There is a digital record of every meeting that Esquivel alleges I disrupted. 

If there is a digital record; incontrovertible proof that I disrupted a meeting, why can't he produce it?  If I have been "hovering over administrators for years, why can't he produce even one photograph of me so doing?

Why doesn't the Journal insist that he produce evidence?  Would you publish an allegation against Esquivel without asking for proof?  Why is Journal coverage so apparently lopsided?

It is because Journal coverage is lopsided.  On its face.

cc link, to the editors upon posting
receipt was acknowledged

DOJ / CABQ / APD "negotiations" to be webcast and archived?

One would think.

With regard to upcoming negotiations, link, one would think that they; the DOJ, CABQ and the APD, would understand that doing anything in unnecessary and or unjustified secret, will only fuel the fire.

The very worst thing a politician or public servant can do,
is anything they do in unnecessary secret
from the people whose resources they spend and
whose power they wield.

Transparency limited only by the spirit of the law.

A searchable archive would be even better.


I am reminded of a safety poster I once saw.
It read;

At the sound of the explosion,

the danger has passed.

After the "negotiations" have begun,
the opportunity to make them transparent
has passed.

Now is the time to insist upon more transparency than there ever has been.

Now is the time to insist upon as much transparency as there ever will be.

"The right time to do the right thing,
is always right now"unk

Does character count in politics and public service?

For the purpose of this poll, character is defined as;

Willing and honest accountability to any standards of conduct higher than the loosest interpretation of the law; the standards of conduct that every higher standard is higher than.

Where else but in government, do enormous amounts of power and resources find themselves protected only by "trust" in human nature and in human beings finding themselves in control of enormous power and resources in an environment where either can be squandered without consequence?

At what point does ignorance become so egregious as to become manifestly willful?

I only ask because willful ignorance in politicians and public servants is nonfeasance at best.

In positions of trust, guilty knowledge is malfeasance.

I have only my own experience to draw upon, but I can't help but believe that if I was the Chief of Police, the city's Chief Administrative Officer, or the Mayor, I would have known about the problems in the police department.  Or, I would have to admit to mind numbing, bone crushing incompetence.

Chiefs and mayors are supposed to know what's going on below them.  They are expected to know.  We, the people, rely upon them to know what's going on.  They are there to protect the public interests through their oversight over the administration of our power and resources.

For people who are expected to know about problems,
for people who are relied upon to know about problems;
uttering the words "I knew nothing about the problems"
is utterly indefensible.

Of which are the words "I know nothing" more powerful evidence; corruption or incompetence?  At best, it's a toss up.

Are the people uttering those words admitting that

• they lack the skills and ability to identify the problems we relied upon them to identify, or that
• they made a deliberate decision to remain willfully ignorant of the problems we trusted them to identify?

In public service, willful ignorance and guilty knowledge are corruption.  Cultures of corruption and incompetence thrive on willful ignorance and guilty knowledge.

That the leadership of the City and the Albuquerque Police Department are egregiously ignorant is beyond debate.  That they are willfully ignorant is beyond debate but for a different reason.  Politically powerful people don't debate or discuss things like their feigned ignorance of problems they failed to address.

With respect to the reform of the Albuquerque Police Department and any other endeavor in need of reform, the reform begins with a candid, forthright and honest accounting of which politicians and public servants knew what when.

When the question put a politician or public servant is;

Are you willing to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but 
the ethically redacted truth, about the 
public interests and your public service?

any answer except yes means no.

Future corruption and incompetence cannot be eliminated
by policies and procedures that apparently grandfather in
all the previous corruption and or incompetence.

It stands to reason.

The DoJ on the APD

I read in the DoJ report on their investigation of the APD;

Chief among these deficiencies is the (Albuquerque Police) department’s failure to implement an objective and rigorous internal accountability system. ... Other deficiencies relate to the department’s inadequate tactical deployments and incoherent implementation of community policing principles.

and I am wondering, who is reasonably responsible for these failures.  And I don't mean just in a buck stops here on the mayor's desk, rah rah, kind of a way.

Who knew or should have known?

Who had guilty knowledge; who knew and did nothing?
Who should have known and remained willfully ignorant?

Who is responsible; whose head should roll?

The heads of the grossly incompetent and even marginally corrupt should roll.  Sometimes they do, maybe this time they will.

The heads that never, or hardly ever roll, rest on the shoulders of the politically powerful people whose responsibility it was, to make certain that the people who worked under them weren't acting on their corruption or out of their incompetence.

I am discouraged to hear good ol' boy speak from Mayor Richard Berry and other high ranking people.

It's time to look forward, they recite together and alone.

Forward looking is good ol' boy speak for; the politicians and public servants who by their corruption and or through their incompetence, squandered our trust; abused our power and wasted our resources, will not be identified, tracked down and fired ... for "personnel reasons".

Forget about it;
it's time to look forward.

Look! something shiny!




photo Mark Bralley

Why isn't public education getting better and cheaper?

Where else has growth in technology produced  so little bang for the buck?  If improved technology could somehow be held accountable for its use in public education, it would be a failed endeavor.

The effort to connect children and the world of knowledge; the "internet" for want of a better word, and helping them learn how to use it to learn how to learn about everything, is failing.

Unless you're inclined to blame teachers, parents or students for (education) technology's pitiful bang for the buck; you have to blame the powers that be.

What else could it be?

In the Albuquerque Public Schools there is nearly a hundred thousand years of teaching experience because, in average public school districts, teachers average seven years of ongoing experience each.

They have among them as well, whatever continuing education and training they have undertaken while they were teaching.  They are the single best resource for an answer if ever the question is asked; 

why isn't this working?

The question isn't asked by the powers that be, because the answer is; the powers that be are responsible for demanding that teachers ignore their education, experience and instincts, and follow instead a path to almost certain failure.

Even you could form children into thought choirs,
why would you want to?

How in this day and age, can we still be insisting that children with nothing in common but their age and the neighborhood they live in, be expected to think and learn in unison; at the same time and all at the same speed?  Six rows of five desks, each child on the same page in the same book at the same moment; no matter where else their natural curiosity and motivation might otherwise compel them to be.

If you believe in mass standardized testing of children; a huge money maker, you must must also believe in mass teaching and learning.  The one requires the other.  Students can't learn at their own speed if every time they pass the start/finish line, they all have to be there together; dutifully arranged in five rows of six.

How is it that with all the technology available to us, we cannot teach nearly any child to learn how to learn; any where, any time and for for a few tens or hundreds of dollars per child?

And yes, there do need to be community schools where students working in groups with the same immediate goal, makes sense.  There need to be neighborhood school buildings and schools for a number of equally important uses.

The stodgy thinking that holds back public education is not the thinking of teachers, it is the thinking of people who for the most part haven't been in a classroom for years.

There's a reason school board member and senior administrators
don't regularly substitute teach the curriculum they demand,
in the manner in which they demand that it be taught, and
under the circumstances they expect teachers to deliver it.




photo  Mark Bralley

Has Marty Esquivel burned a bridge?

According to the Journal, link,

(Defendant) Esquivel, an attorney who works on First Amendment issues, said the judge should have listened to witness testimony regarding MacQuigg’s behavior and not just relied on court briefs.

He is upset that the judge is "dismissive" of his arguments.

“I have never disagreed more with a legal opinion in my 25 years of practicing law,”

What kind  of lawyer says something like that in the newspaper, about a US District Court Chief Judge?

What kind of lawyer says that kind of thing about the judge who is presiding over his own ongoing trial?

Is Marty Esquivel out of control?




photo  Mark Bralley

"Ban is lifted on APS critic"

And with that headline, the Journal began their coverage this morning, link, of developments in the litigation against APS heavy hitters Marty Esquivel, Winston Brooks, Monica Armenta, Steve Tellez ...

The last time the Journal covered the case, link, the reporter chose to not interview me and give me an opportunity to refute, rebut or deny any allegations they were going to publish.  They have again.

Journal (education?) reporter Jon Swedien talked with my lead attorney, but he made no effort to talk with me.  It seems hard to justify.

Had I been interviewed;

I would have pointed out that repeatedly identifying me as an "APS critic" is deliberately pejorative.  I could also be described as a relentless advocate for Character Counts!, governmental transparency, and for actual, honest accountability to meaningful standards of conduct and competence for politicians and public servants within their public service.

I could have been referred to as a blogger; a modern political pamphleteer.  They could have linked to Diogenes' six.

I would have cleared up Swedien's lack of certainty that I intend to return to the public forum at APS School Board meetings.

Why would I not;

• are they going to tell stakeholders the truth about the ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS 
• are they going to tell the truth about the cover up of felony criminal misconduct involving senior APS administrators
• are they going to tell the truth about student discipline and chronically disruptive students
• are they going to end the practice of cost is no object litigation to except senior administrators and school board members from the consequences of breaking the law

if I and many, many others don't step up to demand candid, forthright and honest responses to our legitimate questions?

Swedien interviewed Journal Managing Editor Kent Walz' good friend Defendant Marty Esquivel, and then published his slander without my input.

Esquivel said he imposed the ban – with the backing of the board – because MacQuigg would shout out during board meetings, would hover over administrators and once donned an elephant mask that made employees and members of the public feel uncomfortable and unsafe.

The "backing" Esquivel refers to was gathered in violation of the Open Meeting Act; there was no meeting, no agenda and no vote for the record.

My "shouting" (another deliberately pejorative term) at three board meetings, was because I was being talked to by a board member, talked about by a board member, or being illegally arrested for drawing attention to the elephant in the room.

 No evidence was produced by APS that proved that these incidents actually disrupted any board meeting ever.  I never hovered over any administrator ever; nor have they produced a single photograph of me hovering over anybody. 

As for the elephant mask; Esquivel and Armenta both swore under oath that they thought I was a "mouse".  Armenta sworn she thought I was Chucky Cheese.  Who could be scared by Chucky Cheese?

Esquivel swears in Swedien's report;

The ban was not because MacQuigg criticized APS or because of his outspoken support for an education program called Character Counts.

The Judge;

"... was dismissive of APS’(Marty Esquivel's) arguments."

Marty Esquivel has a position on APS' student standards of conduct; the Pillars of Character Counts!.  It is that he is not personally accountable even as one of the district's eight senior-most role models of accountability to the nationally recognized, accepted and respected code of ethical conduct, link.

We can debate whether politicians and public servants can or should be held honestly accountable to higher standards of conduct and competence within their public service, but there is no debate over how one goes about abandoning accountability to those standards.  The board can't simply resolve to adopt them, link, and then ignore rather than repeal them.

The board must either hold themselves honestly accountable to the Pillars of Character Counts! or lower student standards to a point where the leadership of the APS is comfortable with their own honest accountability.

I can't imagine what standards those would be.  The record of the leadership of the APS is that they are not even accountable to the law; the lowest standards of conduct, the standards of conduct that every higher standard is higher than.

Swedien reports;

"The Court finds that the real reason for excluding Plaintiff from Board meetings is the Board’s frustration with Plaintiff’s ad nauseum belaboring of the Board about Character Counts, and that the justifications offered by the Board are pretexts masking viewpoint discrimination.”

Yes, the Judge described my relentless efforts to hold the leadership of the APS accountable as ad nauseum belaboring.  I'm not sure what I am supposed to do with that.  Should we give up after we have been ignored some number of times?  How many?  How many times do you get to freely exercise a Constitutionally protected human right before forfeiting it?

Swedien offered my attorneys an obligatory column inch;

“All I can say is that Mr. MacQuigg’s behavior has never included anything that would form a legitimate reason for ejecting a citizen from a public meeting of elected officials,” John Boyd said.

It is important to note that nearly everything that Esquivel and Brooks accuse me of doing occurred during school board meetings and in their castle keep at 6400 Uptown Blvd.

My (mis)conduct was either videotaped or it was not.
They made every effort they possible could to videotape any misconduct on my part.

Those meetings and the building they're held in, have more security cameras on them than probably other any place in the city.  The cameras are manned 24/7.

APS employees were ordered to take photographs of me if they could, doing anything wrong. 

APS Police officers were assigned in pairs to follow me around when ever I stepped on APS property. 

They spent a quarter of a million dollars installing cameras and hardening their castle keep against my armed invasion and still, they can't produce a single frame of evidence against me.

There is not one photograph, one second of videotape, or bit of audio recording of me acting outside my Constitutionally protected human rights to act.

There is a reason for that.  Untoward activity has never been in my interests or consistent with my agenda; advocacy of honest accountability to higher standards of conduct.

My agenda would have been immediately and fatally undermined by my doing anything inconsistent with the standards for which I advocate.  I have trained literally thousands of students and adults about Character Counts!.  I have presented before a sitting governor, an APS superintendent, board members, community groups.  I did not do anything at the public forum at a school board meeting that I would be ashamed to have any of those people review.

Review, by the way, is possible.  Anyone who wants to look at the evidence can; it's all online, link.

Esquivel, an attorney who works on First Amendment issues, said the judge should have listened to witness testimony regarding MacQuigg’s behavior and not just relied on court briefs.

“I have never disagreed more with a legal opinion in my 25 years of practicing law,” Esquivel said. He added the board would have lifted the ban had MacQuigg agreed to tone down his behavior.

All I had to do, was admit that I had done something wrong and then promise to not do it again.  The Judge has ruled that I did nothing wrong.  I don't have to "tone down my behavior".  I have no wrongdoing to admit and I shouldn't be required to swear that I will not do something I have never done.

The "witness testimony" comes in the most, from people who I have complained about formally or in blog posts; the School Board President Marty Esquivel, APS Supt Winston Brooks,  Chief Operating Officer Brad Winter, Executive Director of Communications Monica Armenta, and the now disgraced former APS Chief of Police Steve Tellez.

Tellez and his boss APS COO Brad Winter

Tellez swore in his deposition that he had watched videotape of me sneaking into APS headquarters. 

He hadn't of course, because no videotape was recorded of an event that never happened.  I would have had nothing to gain by sneaking in, and everything to lose by getting caught.

They couldn't produce the video. 

None of their manifestly conflicted testimony is corroborated by hard evidence.  Evidence that could have been easily created at the time, could exist now if they had wanted it to, but does not now exist; either because it was never created or because it was created and lost or destroyed in their hands.

Swedien writes;

In addition to APS, MacQuigg’s suit names Esquivel, former board member David Robbins, Superintendent Winston Brooks, former police chief Steve Tellez and communications staffers Monica Armenta and Rigo Chavez.

Why does the Journal always refer to Armenta as a "communications staffer"? She makes over a hundred thousand dollars a year; she's a full fledged member of APS' innermost circle.

Both sides are seeking a summary judgment of the case in their favor. If neither request is successful, the case could head to trial.

Had Swedien asked, I would have reminded him that a settlement has been on the table from the very first day.  It has been rejected by Marty Esquivel because he doesn't want to have to admit that he violated my civil rights.  He's ready, willing and able to spend however many "operational dollars" it takes to prolong that certain result for as long as he can.

If nothing else he needs forestall his conviction until after Friday May 2; the day he is scheduled to teach the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government's seminar on how to control meetings without violating speakers' civil rights.



photos Mark Bralley

Did APS' "phase out" Character Counts!, or just hide it?

The only reason, in one very real sense, that there ever was Character Counts! in the APS, was because US Senator Pete Domenici.

Not only was he a Founding Father and vocal advocate of Character Counts!, but he brought a whole bunch of federal grant money with him.  The leadership of the APS spent ever dime in an effort to appear to be offering character education for students.  Character education in general and Character Counts! in particular.

The Pillars of Character Counts!, link, represent a nationally recognized, accepted and respected code of ethical conduct.  They aren't the only standard, they may not even be the best.  They're the best that I am aware of, and they have been officially the APS student standards of conduct since 1994.

Because the board has not rescinded or modified the resolution that made the Pillars the student standards, and because every year in the APS Student Behavior Handbook they remind students that they are expected to model and promote (honest accountability to) the Pillars of Character Counts!; Respect, Responsibility, Fairness, Caring, Citizenship, and Trustworthiness.

The Pillar of Trustworthiness requires candid, forthright and honest responses to legitimate questions.  The leadership of the APS would have none of that so they struck the role modeling clause from their own standards of conduct.

They think that because they struck the language which used to read;

in no case shall the standards of conduct for adults
be lower than the standards of conduct for students

from their standards of conduct, they can no longer be held actually, honestly accountable as role models of higher standards of conduct than the law.  Standards which often require of people of character;

more than the law requires and 
less than the law allows.

"Phased out" means to discontinue the practice, production, or use of by phases, to stop production or operation by phase.

There was no "phasing out" of honest accountability to higher standards of conduct than the law; they dropped it like a hot potato when the grant money ran out, and when I tried to hold them accountable as role models in state court.

They packed up the evidence and hid it in closets.

Where is the Character Counts! quilt that used to hang outside of APS Supt Winston Brooks' office?

In his deposition, his testimony indicated he is clueless about Character Counts!; the standards of conduct of which he is the senior-most administrative role model in the entire APS.

Is there still a Character Counts! quilt behind the board in the Martin-DeLayo community room?

You can see it behind the board in the accompanying photograph of Audit Committee Chair David Robbins announcing that the board had a conduct a discussion and made a decision illegally; the decision to eject us from the meeting.

They perjured themselves when they each swore that they discussed and decided on nothing during the executive session, except what was on the agenda.

The video and photo documentarian of my travail with the leadership of the APS, photojournalist Mark Bralley, actually managed to tape Board Member Robert Lucero suggesting before they adjourned that, that was what they needed to do.

There is no Character Counts! in the Albuquerque Public Schools because there is not one board member or senior administrator who is willing to stand up in front of students and promise to require no more from students than they require of them self.

Likewise, there is not one board member or senior administrator willing to stand up before students and explain to them in words they can understand, why they will not.

Why students are expected to hold themselves honestly accountable to higher standards of conduct than the law, and school board members and senior administrators are not?




photos; Robbins ched macquigg
Senator Domenici, Robert Lucero, Mark Bralley 

"idiosyncratic behaviors"

When the trial judge wrote;

"Mr. MacQuigg has "exhibited idiosyncratic behaviors"

I went immediately to my online dictionary.  I found;

id·i·o·syn·cra·sy
noun \ˌi-dē-ə-ˈsiŋ-krə-sē\
an unusual way in which a particular person behaves or thinks

I can own that; sometimes I think and behave unusually.

Unusual thinking, including but not limited to;

• I think that the leadership of the APS needs to step up as role models of accountability to the same standards of conduct they establish and enforce upon students, and
• I think that the leadership of the APS should restore the role modeling clause to their own standards of conduct.  In no case shall the standards of conduct for an adult, be lower than the standards of conduct for students.
• I think there are only two reasons why a school board member or senior administrator would not hold them self honestly accountable to student standards of conduct; their own lack of character and or their own lack of courage.
• I think there needs to be an independent evaluation of APS' executive, administrative, adult and student standards of conduct, and of actual honest accountability to those standards, and
• I think the leadership of the APS needs to produce the findings of investigations of allegations of felony criminal misconduct by senior APS administrators and the leadership of APS' Police force, and
• I think there needs to be open and honest two-way communication between the leadership of the APS and the community members they serve, and
• I think, at the public forum and elsewhere, the leadership of the APS should respond candidly, forthrightly and honestly to questions about the public interests and about their public service.

For as long as, and for as many times as I have raised these points at the public forum, not one of them has seen or heard a good faith response.

I am not alone in standing at the podium of at a school board public forum, and noting that the people I'm speaking to aren't listening.

They're working on their lap tops, having side conversations, or playing with their phones.

In an effort to get the leadership of the APS to respond in good faith to legitimate questions, I found myself compelled to behave more "unusually".

Unusual behavior, included but not limited to;

•  I advocate "obsessively" in favor of honest accountability to meaningful standards of conduct and competence for politicians and public servants within their public service, and
• Sometimes I would print what I think, on a poster.   I would stand quietly and peacefully against a wall somewhere during APS school board meetings.
• In 2008 I wore an elephant mask to a couple of meetings.  I stood quietly in the back of the room.  To describe what I did as attempt to menace, threaten and intimidate them into adopting accountability to ethical standards of conduct, is what is meant by grasping at straws, wiktionary.
• The elephant in the room of course is the disconnection between their representation that they are role modeling accountability to higher standards of conduct; the Pillars of Character Counts!, link, and the reality; that it is nearly impossible to hold them accountable even to the law and
• Once, when the Praetorian Guard bounced me from the lobby of a "public input" meeting, I moved outside with my poster.

L to r, me, a grinning Brad Winter, a grinning Steve Tellez, a grinning private police officer, and the free exercise of my civil rights

Whatever one might think of what I think, or how I behave; what I think and how I behave are protected activities.  I have a Constitutionally protected human rights to free speech and to petition my government.

Praetorian Guard rolls on "disruption"

Considering what else has been identified by the Supreme Court as "protected" activities, our standing quietly in the back of a room holding up posters doesn't seem all that unreasonable.

Wearing an elephant mask and standing quietly in the back of a boardroom doesn't seem so unreasonable.

I have challenged their character and their courage and they don't like it.

They have at their immediate disposal, a publicly funded private police force.  It reports directly to, and only to, the leadership of the APS.  It is in every sense, a Praetorian Guard.

They use it to stifle dissent.

They use it to hide the truth about public corruption in the leadership of the APS and their Police force.

Kent Walz and the Journal aid and abet.




photos Mark Bralley

Conceptually, APD reform could not be simpler.

Conceptually, reform of any agency of government could not simpler;

• Identify appropriate and meaningful standards of conduct and competence, and then
• enforce them ruthlessly.

There are, in the known universe, meaningful standards of conduct and competence for police departments and police officers.  If there are not, then there is the problem.

The standards are clear and equivocal.  They are high enough to protect the public interests in the APD.

There is not the will to find those standards and then enforce them ruthlessly.

The problem is that it isn't possible to create a system that holds (future) politicians and public servants accountable for their misconduct and incompetence, that does not also hold accountable current office and position holders for their past incompetence and corruption.  Their incompetence and corruption is not going to be "grandfathered" in; they have no choice but to resist reform however surreptitiously.

If you really want to end any particular incompetence or corruption, all you have to do is create a place or opportunity for complaints alleging incompetence and corruption to enjoy due process.

All you have to do is to create a place or opportunity where the least powerful can file complaints against the most powerful and those complaints will be adjudicated honestly.

One of the accoutrements of power is the opportunity to self investigate allegations of your own incompetence or corruption.  The Albuquerque Police Department has "internal affairs", and the leadership of the APS has RCI, link. 

Every good ol' boy oligarchy in government has some way of keeping a lid on the truth about incompetence and corruption in their domain; whether it be their own or their subordinates'.

If there is corruption, the guilt falls first on the corrupt.  It should fall next on the politician or public servant whose own corruption or incompetence enabled the subordinate's corruption to take place.

It doesn't.

If you give people the opportunity to cover up their own failure to hold subordinates accountable, they will.  Consider the cover up of the corruption and incompetence in the leadership of the APS Police force.  APS self investigated and then hid, and are still hiding the findings from the District Attorney.

Chief Tellez whispers in Winter's ear.

How often do you hear about a government official being held accountable for incompetence or corruption beneath them?  Is APS COO Brad Winter going to be held accountable for the circumstances that led his chief of police to believe he could misappropriate public property for his own use?


The solution to the problems in the APD, the APS, and every other agency of government that is abusing power, is to stop letting them control investigations and findings of their abuse.

The solution is truly independent and powerful investigations whose findings cannot be redacted by the subjects of the investigations.




photo Mark Bralley

Whole APS Board to hear the truth, finally

The APS School Board is scheduled to meet Friday morning.
On their agenda, link;

II. Consideration for Approval to Convene in Executive Session Pursuant to the Open Meetings Act NMSA 1978 (§ 10-15-1 (H)(7)) for the Purpose of Discussing Pending Litigation Regarding Charles “Ched” MacQuigg vs. The Albuquerque Public Schools Board of Education, Civ. No. 12-1137 MCA/KBM (Action)

In this meeting, if things go as they should, the other six board members beside Marty Esquivel will hear a candid, forthright and honest appraisal case analysis of the litigation of my complaints against Esquivel et al.

The presentation of the case analysis is way overdue.  It should have taken place two years and $600K ago.  It should have ended before it started.

The truth about the spending of around $600K on legal defenses for Marty Esquivel, Winston Brooks, Monica Armenta and Steve Tellez will be presented to the entire board in a meeting in secret.

It would be difficult to overstate the importance of this meeting.

It is the mechanism by which the people hold the Superintendent actually accountable for his administration of their power and resources.

Because the meeting is in secret, you can only "trust" that board members will do the right thing; that they will act in the public interests and not in their own.

The right thing of course, is to settle the case.  We have been willing to settle from the very beginning.  All they had to do was admit they violated my civil rights and agree on reasonable damages.

Rather than admit their wrongdoing,  Esquivel and Brooks began spending many times more tax dollars than I will ever see in settlement, to underwrite their cost is no object legal defenses and efforts to escape accountability for their deliberate misconduct.

This case analysis should have been presented long ago.
That it is only now being presented is noteworthy.
If nothing else, it substantiates my claim that the board
has remained willfully ignorant of the truth for years.

All in an effort avoid an open and honest public discussion of;

• their production of findings of investigations into allegations of felony criminal misconduct involving senior APS administrators and the leadership of the APS Police force; a publicly funded private police force accountable directly to and only to the leadership of the APS,
• an independent evaluation of executive, administrative, adult and student standards of conduct and competence,
• actual accountability to those standards for even the most powerful,
• student discipline and chronically disruptive students, and
• executive and administrative role modeling of student standards of conduct

Tellez criminal investigation enters 4th week

I would like to know the truth about the criminal investigation of allegations against former APS Chief of Police Steve Tellez.

I have the same right to know the truth about the spending of the people's power and resources, as anyone else.  It is fair to say that the City and County public information officers are doing as little as the law requires in their efforts to respond to my requests for information.

In fact, by the time the search for information reaches the level of Custodians of Public Records, less is done than the law requires.

They routinely insist that they have 15 days to produce any public record.  This though the clearly expressed intent of the NM Inspection of Public Records Act is; immediately available records should be produced immediately, or as soon as "practicable".

When I challenged them on the practice, I received no response.

In any event, we are still waiting for the truth not so much about what Tellez did, as the truth about the circumstances in the leadership of the APS that made Tellez believe he could get away with what he did.  People don't commit crimes if they think they're going to get caught when they do.

The why Tellez thought he might get away with what he allegedly did, includes but is not limited to the findings of two independent investigations commissioned by the leadership of the APS.

The finding are in the immediate possession of the leadership of the APS and they are being hidden from public knowledge in violation of the NM Inspection of Public Records Act.

The findings are being hidden by means of protracted litigation using public money and against the public interests.

Weaknesses in the law allow the leadership of the APS to hide the truth.

It fair to wonder;

If the truth makes them look good,
why are they hiding it?

If the truth makes them look good, why do they have to public information officers to not tell it?

It's difficult for me to understand why it is taking the Bernalillo County Sheriff Dan Houston a month come to a conclusion that private investigators came to, link. two weeks after Tellez was placed on paid administrative leave.

Is that unusual?  Is is unreasonable?

If it is or isn't, isn't on Houston's list of things he is going to talk about, even though his PIO.

His PIO has joined the list of public information officers pulling on the wrong end of the rope in the struggle for access to public records.

We pay PIOs to inform the people; candidly, forthrightly and honestly.

Instead, their days are spent polishing a persona consistent with the re-election or reappointment of the people they work under.

The truth about the public corruption in the leadership of APS' publicly funded private police force belongs to the people.  The people have a right to know how their power and resources are being spent.

Its not fair to blame Houston's PIO Sergeant Aaron Williamson, or Mayor Richard Berry's PIO Breanna Anderson, or APS' Executive Director of Communication Monica Armenta and other PIOs for their lack of candor, forthrightness and honesty.

They're only following orders.

It is fair to blame the people who knowingly permit, negligently allow, or who themselves give the orders to spin the truth.

In this case, the buck stops on the desks of APS Supt Winston Brooks and of Bernalillo County Sheriff Dan Houston.

They both have reasons to hide the truth about executive and administrative incompetence and corruption because some of that corruption has included the Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department direct participation.  The BCSD participated in APS' criminal abuse a federal criminal database in an effort to harass and retaliate against APS whistleblowers.

Dan Houston legitimizes the power APS is abusing.
His failure to end the abuse enables it to continue.

There is an ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS.  Sheriff Houston is ultimately responsible for conducting an investigation of evidence of criminal misconduct by a member of APS' inner most circle.  Former APS Police Chief Steve Tellez was the administrative enforcer; the counterpart to the school board's enforcer, former School Board President Marty Esquivel.

That investigation needs to be a lot of things,
not the least of which is timely.

Stakeholders are entitled to a timely resolution of an investigation into the squandering of their trust and treasure.

The longer that the ethically redacted truth remains hidden,
the less likely that the truth will ever be told.

These same players; the leadership of the APS and the leadership of the Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department, are still hiding the truth about the last time they got together to criminally violate the civil rights of whistleblowers.

Sheriff Dan Houston told me that the evidence of the Sheriff's Department complicity in completing illegal criminal background checks on APS whistleblowers and a Deputy Superintendents fiancee, disappeared when Sheriff Darren White left office.

It was under White's oversight that APS administrators criminally abused the public trust by using a federal resource for their own selfish interests; the harassment and retaliation against whistleblowers.

So here we are again, the Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department is in possession (likely) of evidence of senior APS administrators criminally violating the public trust, and they are dragging their heels over producing it.

It's not so much that it's taking too long.  The BCSD may have at the moment, bigger fish to fry.

The problem is;  Sheriff Houston, by and through a PIO, is not willing to be candid, forthright and honest with stakeholders about the status of his investigation.

His lack of candor, forthrightness and honesty does not play well in the light of the ongoing cover up of the truth about the last time the APS and the BCSD got together, criminally misbehaved, self-investigated their own criminal misconduct, and then didn't file criminal charges against any of the players.

The truth is, nobody really knows for certain who first argued;

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

But they were wrong.  Power cannot corrupt.  Temptation corrupts.  Temptation corrupts absolutely.

The opportunity to abuse power without consequence is tempting.  The opportunity to abuse power without consequence is corrupting, absolutely.

Hiding the truth is a mechanism for abusing power without feeling consequences.

There is only one reason to hide the truth, and that is
to avoid the consequences of telling the truth.

In ideal circumstances the people's interests are protected by a free press working diligently to expose public corruption and the squandering of our trust and treasure.

In exponentially less than ideal circumstances we have
Kent Walz and the Journal.

Woe are we.




photos Mark Bralley

Marty Esquivel's ego; worth a million dollars? to whom?

In September 2010, then School Board President Marty Esquivel banned me from school board meetings and the public forums they include.

The evidence clearly indicates
that he banned me over the
content of my speech.

Esquivel's considerable and
very expensive efforts to convince a federal court judge otherwise, have failed, link.

Anyone who looks at the evidence in this case, will come the same conclusion that the judge did; Esquivel violated my civil rights.

So why didn't APS simply settle the case at the get-go and cut their (the people's) losses?

Marty Esquivel's legal defense budget is literally unlimited.
He spends with no real oversight and without the board's oversight.

The entire school board is supposed to oversee litigation.
The board is the people's eyes on the administration of public power and resources.

The mechanism for that oversight includes a presentation to the entire board of the facts in and particular litigation; in particular the facts in cases costing taxpayers nearly a million dollars.

The lawyers who represent administrators and school board members, are supposed to describe to the entire board, candidly, forthright, honestly and in some detail; albeit in secret from the people who's power and resources are being spent, all of the aspects of the case that the board needs to consider before adding their collective stamp of approval to the continuing litigation.

The board's stamp of approval can be applied only in a meeting where the litigation appears on the agenda.  It has not; ergo there has been no legal meeting during which a case analysis of this case, could have been presented.

Esquivel has already encumbered nearly a million tax dollars and the school board still hasn't met to discuss the case.

There is some "oversight" provided by subordinates;
on its face, oxymoronic and manifestly conflicted.

If the board knew the truth about the complaints against Esquivel, would they give him the go ahead to spend even more money in his effort to escape the consequences of his deliberate violation of my Constitutionally protected human rights?

Are we paying to protect Esquivel's ego?

Consider that he considers himself a First Amendment specialist.
His expertise is called into question when he views his own record and then concludes that he did nothing wrong.  Esquivel told the Journal and interest holders;

“I’m very sensitive to how the law should work in terms of people having a right to express themselves, and I have absolutely no reservations about doing what we did as it pertains to Mr. MacQuigg.”

If that statement doe not raise questions about his expertise,
then it raises questions about his honesty with the Journal.

The nearly million dollar (so far) litigation is funded with operational funds; money that could and would otherwise be spent educating children.  Any settlement will come from operational funds and insurance carriers.  Worth pointing out; for every dollar I ever see in settlement, Marty Esquivel and Winston Brooks will have spent three or more dollars in their effort to keep themselves from being individually associated with their guilt.

It's an outrage.

More outrageous of course, the Journal's continued complicity in, and or complacency about APS' use of operational dollars to separate administrators and school board members from the consequences of their misconduct.




photo Mark Bralley

You would not believe, and you likely never will find out

how much money politicians and public servants like APS School Board Member Marty Esquivel, Supt Winston Brooks and the rest of the leadership of the APS spend on cost is no object legal defenses in their efforts to escape the consequences of breaking the law.  You have no idea how many operational dollars, dollars that could and should be spent in classrooms instead, are spent on settlements in order that the names of the guilty can be scrupulously scrubbed out.

Esquivel admitted to me long ago, that he knew that APS lawyers have a long history of running up huge bills in litigation and then settling when every last dime has been squeezed out or their time has come in court.

I can tell you that the number is so large that the district (taxpayers) have to pay more for their insurance than comparable districts with less litigious leadership.

You have no idea how much they spend and how.

You will likely never find out how much they spend and how,
because the Journal and other "news outlets"
won't ask them the question.

Or, if they have asked,
they won't tell us what they said.

The one really, no better than the other.

Esquivel, despite his guilt, will teach FOG seminar

The Chief United States District Judge wrote, link;

The public has an interest in seeing public meetings conducted in a manner that respects attendees’ First Amendment rights.

in finding that former APS School Board President Marty Esquivel violated the First Amendment and my civil rights by unreasonably restricting the content of my speech and discriminating against me for my viewpoint.

In the Journal's one-sided coverage when we filed the complaint, link, the Journal offered;

Esquivel, an attorney specializing in First Amendment issues, said he is confident the board has not unfairly limited MacQuigg’s free speech rights.

even quoting the First Amendment specialist;

“I’m very sensitive to how the law should work in terms of people having a right to express themselves, and I have absolutely no reservations about doing what we did as it pertains to Mr. MacQuigg,” Esquivel said.

The Journal chose to not interview me for the article; presenting instead only Esquivel's side.

Well, Esquivel was wrong, and now we find he is scheduled to teach a continuing ed session for the New Mexico Foundation for Open Government, link entitled;

First amendment, open courtrooms and other issues in regard to access.
Presented by Martin Esquivel and Greg Williams

In particular we find that Esquivel will present on the issues of;

• How to maintain order without infringing on constituents’ constitutional rights
• Who has access to public comment period? ... and
• Do photographers have access to public meetings, legislative committee hearings?

Interestingly, Esquivel is also a named Defendant in another lawsuit having to do with the rights of photographers (among other things).

One wonders; what might the FOG be thinking?

There is a seminar that Esquivel is fully qualified to teach;

• How powerful politicians and public servants can bilk taxpayers out of hundreds of thousands of dollars; squandering the public trust and treasure on legal defenses that enjoy no real oversight, link, in an effort to litigate exceptions for themselves, from the law.

Esquivel's friend, Journal Managing Editor Kent Walz, relentlessly refuses to allow the truth to be told; about Esquivel, or about the ethics and accountability scandal wracking the leadership of the APS.

APS, Brooks, and Esquivel lose important court battle

A United States District Court Judge has found, link, that former APS School Board President and enforcer Marty Esquivel's banning letter violated my civil rights and has enjoined Esquivel and APS from enforcing the ban.

I look forward to returning to the public forum.




photo Mark Bralley

Who is "the press"? Who gets to decide?

Breanna Anderson is Mayor Richard Berry's Deputy Director of Communications.

At the time the adjoining photo was being taken, Ms. Anderson was explaining to photo-journalist Mark Bralley and me, that she would be happy to send us copies of notice of news conferences, in response to a public records request and 15 days after the news conference takes place.

I am currently in email communication with her over being put on her "media advisory list".

The media advisory list is of those "news outlets" that will be contacted when the City or County wants "the news" to know something.  Inclusion on the list means prior notification about press conferences.

In exchange for being put on the media advisory list, the "news outlets" agree to abide by the Mayor's rules of decorum.  Those who don't abide by "the rules", some legitimate questions are off limits, find themselves removed from the media advisory list.

Mayor Berry, by and through his Deputy Director of Communications, would like to keep me and others who might ask inconvenient question, away from his news conferences.

It is disparate treatment under the law.

I am currently engaged with Ms. Anderson in an attempt to clarify the Mayor's position.  The following is an email exchange regarding my interest in being put on the media advisory list.

Ms. Anderson,

I am asking to be put on the media advisory list, not as a "news outlet"; whatever that means.  My request is for equal treatment under the law, as a member of the press.

Recall with me that the First Amendment reads in significant part;

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom ... of the press ...

There is no mention of "news outlets" or "the media".

My understanding of that language is that it means; the Mayors Office shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.

The question is not what news outlet I work for, or what their email address is, it is; am I or am I not a member of the "press".

As a digital age political pamphleteer, I consider myself to be precisely "the press" that the founding fathers sought to protect.  Am I entitled to Constitutional protection of my human right to be the press? 

A more fundamental question is; who gets to decide whether I am entitled to a Constitutionally protected human right?  Does a Deputy Director of Communications have that authority?

I am wondering if we can cut to the chase; simply lay our cards on the table.
Would you please forward to me, anything that the Mayor will point to, if ever he has to explain how he decides who is, and who is not, entitled to the right to be the free press.

My "news" outlet of course is Diogenes' six; http://ched-macquigg.blogspot.com/
There is no associated email.
This letter is an open letter.

I am grateful for your time and attention.

ched macquigg

On 4/1/2014 11:05 AM, Anderson, Breanna wrote:

Hi Chad,

I’ve received a request to add you to the media advisory list.
Can you advise which news outlet you work for? And do you have an email associated with them?

Thanks so much,

Breanna Anderson | Deputy Director of Communications | Mayor's Office | O.505.768.3037 | C.505.980.3567 | ...

photos  Mark Bralley